On Sep 2, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Leo Meyerovich wrote: > That said, going back to the beginning: deterministic GC-independent > semantics are a Good Thing. Whether this matters seems to be a crucial > discussion. Is there a concern for basic correctness for more mundane code? > Are those use cases similar to the above where a 'strictness' library > suffices? Again, I'd point to the ActionScript experience for a reference: > can anybody attack or break a flash program with weak maps, or is this FUD? > I'm more concerned about the dangers of misuse in terms of memory leaks and > event-oriented logic glitches between code running on different ES > implementations (and suspect the answer has a reasonable chance of being > 'yes' for these).
I tend to agree that the answer is 'yes', assuming the question was "Whether [deterministic GC-independent semantics] matters" ;-). It's hard to make an airtight case for "security" even on a good day, but removing observability from the weak maps proposal makes it strictly simpler and less likely to cause any number of problems. I don't believe that lack of enumerability and .length cripples the API for the intended use cases of soft fields, membrane caches, and the like. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
